Submission to NSW Solar Summit 2

A lot has been going on on the solar world – more of which I wish I had had time to comment upon.

I have however put together a submission to the NSW Solar Summit 2 being held this Friday July 1st in Newcastle, so feel free to read and consume.  Feedback always welcomed.

Dear Solar Summit Participants,

I would like to propose a number of measures regarding small, medium and large scale solar which I believe will have a positive impact in the discussion.

First and foremost, the basis on which the discussion needs to be held in the spirit of fairness, reasonability, support for the renewable energy industry and in a way which is sustainable for all parties involved.

The main principles which I believe should be adopted are:

Indexation – all domestic and commercial feed-in tariffs should be subject to indexation of average electricity prices being paid by the consumer / business installing the system.

Annual review – prices paid for solar electricity should be reviewed annually with an adjustment to curb over-adoption, but which has a view to the renewable energy targets set at both a state and federal level.

Stability – the plan should be for a long term support policy, for 15-20 years, with a major review to be conducted each 3 years to assess the success of the program.  The program should also have set criteria for changes in policy being implemented which will ensure that cut-offs with less than 8 hours notice never occur.  Entrants to the program should have their program locked in for 10 years at the time they apply.

Domestic and small scale commercial systems should have a NET Premium Feed-in Tariff (PFIT) scheme, the basis of which I would suggest as the following:

Based on an index base of that which the consumer/business is charged, Net PFIT could be calculated as

1kW – 9.995kW – PFIT = 2 times index base
10kW – 29.995kW – PFIT = 1.75 times index base
30kW – 59.995kW – PFIT = 1.5 times index base (commercial capped at total energy bill rate)
60kW – 100kW – PFIT = 1.25 times index base (commercial capped at total energy bill rate)

For example then, a householder paying 24¢ per kWh would receive a NET rate of 48¢ per kWh, and a business installing a 60kW system which pays 16¢ per kWh would receive a NET rate of 20¢ per kWh.

This would encourage the continued adoption of a NET system, and provide mechanism to support the domestic industry.  Any Net system should be metered and calculated at not more than 30 minute intervals (similar to the Victorian system).

The commercial side (30kW – 100kW) should also be capped to ensure that businesses do not profiteer from the system, but rather that they are encouraged to size their systems appropriately to their energy use.  A 100kW system in NSW should provide an average of around 400kWh per day, so this will provide for over 90% of commercial users to gain access to the program (given an average business uses around 240kWh per day)

For large scale solar, it is probably unreasonable to request (as desirous as it may be) for a premium to be legislated for PV generated power, however if a federally legislated program which provided appropriate tax breaks on PV systems, and indeed on PV system components, then this would support large scale development.  These tax breaks could include GST-Free status for PV systems across the board, income tax holidays for medium to large scale solar, for either a period of say 5 years, or until the cost of the system is recouped.  As with AusIndustry projects, there could also be a tax concession of 150% on the cost of installation of a commercial grade solar system to support the introduction of the 30kW-100kW systems.

In addition the lobbying of the federal government at a state level to develop programs to support, the government could deem a number of PV Regions where these tax offsets / benefits would occur.  This would allow the designation of PVRs to support rural and regional development in renewable energy, and investment in rural communities, along with the zoning of areas which are peak demand deficient, such as undersupplied industrial regions.

Previous schemes have been capped at certain number of MW installed capacity.  This capping has seen uncertainty enter the market and has been part of the driver behind the “race” to go solar.  If any PFIT scheme to be reintroduced is to be capped, then it would be prudent to open a portion of that cap to a competitive tender process whereby the tenderers can agree to purchase the power generated at an agreed rate.  This can then be resold by those tenderers as they see fit, and at any time.  This process would grow and extend the cap mechanism, and ensure that there was a long term market for the scheme.

Finally, as we move towards a fully deregulated electricity industry in 2015, we need to look at the ability of consumers and PV generators to be paid a premium for electricity fed into the grid at peak times.  In the extremes of Summer and Winter, there are days where power on the national market is traded at a premium.  Currently more and more businesses and indeed even consumers are moving to a variable rate tariff.  Any PFIT scheme which uses an index base (against what the customer is charged) to provide the value of that which is generated must have the ability to provide that premium back to the business in peak demand times.  This will further encourage behaviour modification in terms of power consumption, which is of course the object of the entire exercise.

In summary therefore, I recommend the adoption of the following actions:

• Adoption of an indexed PFIT scheme for Domestic systems
• Adoption of an indexed PFIT scheme for Domestic systems, with a generation cap to be placed on the value generated at 100% of the energy consumed
• Introduction of tax breaks / tax holidays / tax incentives for commercial, medium and large scale PV projects
• Commitment to tender all or a significant portion of any cap set on the PFIT scheme
• Introduction of variable rate metering to include variable rate PFIT benefit

I commend these to the summit.

A.

The future of Solar in Victoria

The Sun’s power is free, and it sustains everything that we do on a daily basis, and more and more, we are being given the opportunity to harness this resource to ensure that we have an ongoing renewable future.  The technology employed today is some 50 years old, tried, tested and proven over time, however we have come to the point where technology is allowing us to become more efficient at the way we use photovoltaics, and the way we manufacture products that help us extract the sun’s power.  Efficiency is the name of the game, but it should not just be efficiency in physical solar generation that we are focussed on, it should be efficiency of government process to allow us to make the most out of the technology, and to encourage the take up of not just micro-solar installations but larger installations as well.

Currently there are two ways to receive benefits from solar power systems in Australia – federal government based rebates, and state government feed-in tariffs.  The federal government system is built around what are now called Small-scale Technology Certificates or STCs.  These certificates (also referred to as RECs previously) notionally represent one megawatt hour of renewable energy that is deemed to be generated in the future by the solar system.  These certificates are then used to offset mandatory targets of the energy companies to surrender these as a part of their renewable energy generation.  The government has put in place a multiplier of 5 for the first 1.5kW of solar generation as well, so this increases the number solar credits from 26 to 133 in Melbourne.  This will be reduced to 106 from July 1^st, and with STCs currently being able to be sold at around $34 each in the market, this will reduce the rebate by about $918 (ex GST).

This means that you will pay around $1000 more for your solar system after July 1^st, but there is the ongoing repayment factor also to consider.  State based Feed-in Tariffs have been the means by which we receive the return on investment.  Currently in Victoria, we receive a 60 cent base feed-in tariff from the Government, which is added to by some energy providers, allowing a correctly and appropriately sized system in Victoria to generally be paid off in around 5 years.  The Victorian approach to date has been one of sustainable rollout, with currently around 45MW of a 100MW allowance installed.  With the expected rush of customers trying to get installed by June 30^th however, it is expected that the remainder of the feed-in tariff in Victoria will be allocated by around September this year, if not earlier, where it was expected to continue until the end of the year at least.

The good news is, that there is still time for residential customers to ensure that they get in on the deals, however some suppliers currently are reaching their installation capacity even now, so people will need to ensure that they get an installation guarantee by June 30^th to get the most from their solar system.

The challenge in Victoria for the Premier, Mr Ted Ballieu, the Minister for Energy and Resources, Mr Michael O’Brien and Minister for Environment & Climate Change Mr Ryan Smith, is to come up with a long term plan which is not only focussed on micro-solar, but also to look at a mechanism which will encourage medium to large scale solar plants to be established.  The Ballieu government through Mr Smith has undertaken to continue the commitment of the previous Labor government to 5% of energy being generated by solar technologies by 2020, and they are to be commended for this commitment.  Creating the right environment for business investment in Victoria however is still a long way off, and is the real solar challenge for this Government.

If a scaled tariff system for small scale solar (5kW to 20kW), medium scale solar (20kW to 200kW) and large scale solar (200kW+) is set so it can encourage business to install solar plants on the millions of square metres of warehouse and factory space that is currently underutilised, then we will have the opportunity to meet the 5% generation target that has been set.  Certainly, such a scheme will require directed commitment of the government as it will not be a cheap scheme to implement, however a moderate, indexed business feed-in tariff of 1.5 times the chargeable energy rate, which is capped at 100% of the energy bill would allow businesses to install a solar system to meet their own business requirements, and would not create the “solar rush” that we saw in NSW.  This would be one way to encourage businesses to be solar self-sufficient, and would require significantly less infrastructure investment, because the solar systems are in place where the energy is being used, not at some remote location where generated power needs to be transported back to the local grid.

The solar opportunity will still be in place after July 1^st, it will still be a very viable option for micro-generators.  The plans for review of the current feed-in tariff are already in place, so when Victoria reaches its 100MW target, we will know where we are going.  The challenge to meet the 5% solar generation target set down by the government however still looms large.  Only by making some tough and directed, expensive decisions will we achieve this target.  The real concern however should not be the cost of doing something about it, but rather the cost of doing nothing.

A.

And now for Green Stop….

Green start stopped before it even sees the light of day…  The elves have been hard at work in Canberra, making sure that we all have lots of lovely presents.  And just to be sure that all the assessors who spent thousands of dollars on training, professional affiliation, insurance and the like, they thought they’d give us one more.

Cancellation of the Green Start program.  Yay Greg.

So sad it is that the government still hasn’t got it’s policies working, and we are the poorer for the lack of vision on real climate change policy.  But never fear – according to the press release, “the Government will continue to ensure that Federal programs to assist low income households to save energy and reduce their energy costs are implemented, and in the most effective and efficient ways possible.”

And we know that this will definitely work because the government has such a fantastic track record in this area, and we have faith that despite all the rhetoric and finger pointing that this time they will get it right.

Bah Humbug.

And to everyone else, Merry Christmas…

A.

Way to kill an industry – NSW makes people PAY for their own solar

Well – the review is said and done, and the outcome – guess what, if you live in New South Wales, and don’t have your order in by midnight, then you will have to PAY for your solar.

That’s right – as of midnight tonight, the feed-in tariff will be reduced from 60¢ to 20¢ per kWh.  What the?

Kristina Keneally has Killed the NSW solar industry in one fell swoop as effectively as Peter Garrett killed the insulation industry. Rather than taking a broad positive step, they have knee jerked again as they are wont to do, and rather than a gradual reduction and pull back, which was expected, and is entirely appropriate, we have seen a complete devastation of the NSW solar industry.

One needs to wonder, really, what were they thinking.  How can we ensure that the PV program is wiped out completely, how can we ensure that every solar company set up moves out of NSW?  How can we ensure that the PV installers who have been working feverishly for so long to provide a renewable energy base for the future are left high and dry with nothing more than 3-6 months work installing panels for companies who may just pull out?  Hey – lets introduce a feed-in tariff regime where we have users PAY for their own solar energy!  Way to go Kristina.

Unlike the ACT government who has recently announced expansion in their solar program to promote up to 240MW of renewable generation in just the ACT, the NSW move today is completely retrograde, and limiting what is left of the program to 300MW is just a further nail in the coffin.

There is one light at the end of the tunnel though – NSW has an election early next year, and the Greens have already expressed shock at the severity of the cutbacks, and with any luck the Liberal opposition will opt to review the feed-in tariff if elected.

The only other thing that there is left to be thankful for is that this time it is only NSW that is affected, not QLD, not Victoria, SA or WA, and not those already who have purchased.

If the order is in by midnight tonight (27/10) then it will still be eligible for the 60 cent tariff.

Kristina – if you read this, this is not the way to invest in the environment, and not the way to invest in our kids future.  Electricity prices are going up – we know that already, it MUST if we are committed to renewable energy sources.  I just hope that you are happy with your legacy.

A.

PFIT Submissions to NSW Gov – how to make a difference.

Since the Premium Feed-in Tariff review announcement  last month, many pundits have been trying to work out what is the best for the industry as a whole, what is best for the Government, what is best for the end consumer, and what is best for business.

Many see the review not as a wholesale opportunity for the government to reduce a commitment to renewable energy, but in fact as a way to further encourage the take up of renewable energy and to extend to program beyond its current generous but very restricted scope.

The Scheme is outlined in Section 15A of the Energy Supply Act.  Specifically the objectives as defined in the Act are:

1. to encourage and support persons who want to generate renewable energy as a response to climate change;
2. to develop jobs in the renewable energy sector by assisting renewable energy generation to compete with non-renewable energy generation;
3. to increase public exposure to renewable energy technology in order to encourage the whole community to respond to climate change.

Key terms of the Act for securing the above objectives are contained in section 15A and include:

• the length of the scheme – commencing on 1 January 2010 and operating for 7 years.
• tariff rate – crediting eligible customers at a rate of 60 cents per kilowatt hour.
• tariff type – customers with a gross meter receive a ‘gross’ feed-in tariff rate for all the electricity that their eligible solar photovoltaic (PV) system or wind turbine generates.
• customer eligibility requirements – small electricity customers (those with an annual electricity consumption of up to 160 megawatt hours) are eligible to participate in the Scheme.
• system eligibility requirements – only customers with one solar photovoltaic (PV) panel and wind turbines (up to 10 kilowatts in capacity) that connect to the electricity network through an inverter (up to 10 kilowatts in capacity) are eligible to participate in the Scheme.

Currently there are 4 major barriers in the program.  First, the cap of 60¢ per kWh generated, second the maximum of 10kW system size (giving an effective cap of around 40kWh per day or thereabouts, depending on your location), third the maximum of 7 years for which the tariff can be received, and fourth, the maximum energy consumption of 160MWh per annum (438kWh / day) eligibility criteria.

Each of these in turn, with appropriate changes provides an opportunity to further positively develop renewable energy generation, and realistically, put the power back in to where it is needed.  So lets examine each in turn.

The feed-in tariff of 60¢ is a reasonably good fit for the end user as it provides an average householder with a system which can be sized to make a significant dent or remove their power bill with a reasonable investment.  Most homes should expect to remove the vast majority of power bills over a year with an out of pocket investment of $6000-$10,000.  Coupled with the value of the RECs for this system, the capital investment value of around $15,000 provides a solid investment, with a return on investment which will see the average system paid of within 4 to 5 years.

Again, this is great, provided electricity bills stay the same.  Electricity bills unfortunately will not stay the same.  These are only going to increase, so on order to address this it would be appropriate to introduce and indexation of the Feed-in Tariff reviewed every 3, 6 or 12 months (with a mechanism for determining the PFIT rate predetermined).  This would enable a Solar Electricity system to directly add value into the future, and would discourage a wholesale increase in the price of electricity by the generators.  There have already been a number of instances of price gouging of unwary end user customers, and matching the PFIT rate to electricity charges would discourage this.

This then brings into focus the second point – the current maximum PFIT system size of 10kW.  This is greater than the PFIT system in Victoria, however is only a third of the reviewed rate in the ACT which now sits at 30kW.  Enabling business to take part in the PFIT is key to providing a true sustainable resource as it is business which has the wherewithal to invest in renewable systems.  Businesses which can afford to invest in Solar should be encouraged to do so.  We have already see many businesses invest in 10kW systems in NSW, however this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The two avenues to improvement here are providing a scaled business investment system through a structured, indexed system which permits the entry of medium scale PV systems.  Systems up to 100kW should be permitted to be eligible, as they are currently eligible under the ORER RECs scheme.  This would provide real tangible value back to the end users.

On order to provide medium scale users with access, the consumption based PFIT eligibility criteria must be removed.  Larger scale energy users need to be encouraged to put back and invest in renewables.  These will generally be companies or businesses with large roof space, which can afford to add solar panels.

It would be reasonable also however to step the PFIT value based on the size of the system being installed.  I would propose a structured PFIT rate as follows:

Based on an index base of 20¢ per kWh charge rate,  Gross PFIT could be calculated as

1kW – 9.995kW – PFIT = 3 times index base
10kW – 24.995kW – PFIT = 2.5 times index base
25kW – 49.995kW – PFIT = 2 times index base
50kW – 100kW – PFIT = 1.5 times index base

One of the greatest benefits of this would provide is that it would directly encourage the development of solar energy input into the some of the areas which most need it, and which have the most consumption (industrial).  Whilst there is not necessarily a base load facility, having the capacity available in these areas would not require significant additional infrastructure spend (substation and high voltage power lines) as the power would be used mainly in the local area in which it is generated, and the substation transformer capacity would also (generally) already be available.

So – in conclusion, we would like to see the NSW government amend secion 15A of the Energy Supply Act as follows:

• Introduce an indexation of feed-in tariff rates to energy supply costs to ensure that the value of the feed-in is not eroded by supply price increases, and to have this index adjusted each 3 months by a pre-determined mechanism.
• Remove the cap of 160MWh consumption as an eligibility criteria to encourage medium business to take up Solar
• increase the maximum rated system output to 100kW in line with ORER’s REC creation policy
• Introduce a sliding scale of PFIT multipliers based on rated system capacity
  1kW – 9.995kW – PFIT = 3 times index base
  10kW – 24.995kW – PFIT = 2.5 times index base
  25kW – 49.995kW – PFIT = 2 times index base
  50kW – 100kW – PFIT = 1.5 times index base
• Maintain the current ‘gross’ metering arrangements as set out in the Act

The above changes would encourage persons and businesses to generate renewable energy as a response to climate change, would make significant inroads into allowing renewable energy to compete with non-renewable energy sources.  This would encourage the current renewable energy industry to develop and grow, and provide new long term employment opportunities for the industry, and encourage the further development of alternative energy resources and commercialisation of R&D projects.

I commend these recommendations to the review panel.

A.

NSW Government announces Solar Feed-in Tariff Review

Earlier this week, the NSW Government quietly announced the review as the 50MW review trigger had been reached.

The NSW Scheme which provides for a 60¢ GROSS Feed-in Tariff for eligible properties (details online here) was originally slated for review in either 2012, or when the 50MW target was reached.

The Minister has stated that any changes to the program as a result of the review would not be applied retrospectively.  This means no customers who have already signed up to the scheme will be affected. Customers can continue to apply for and receive the current feed-in tariff until (and if) any legislative changes are made as a result of the review.

Public submissions must be received before 30 September, with the review to be tabled towards the end of the next session of Parliament.

More information can be found on the website for the Solar Bonus Scheme or by contacting the NSW Department of Industry and Investment on 1300 136 888. Submissions can be emailed to solarbonus.review@industry.nsw.gov.au.

This also foreshadows the likely review of the Victorian Feed-in Tariff scheme, as the take-up of Solar in Victoria has been higher than in NSW to date.  Whilst the DPI in Victoria is yet to release any details on the Feed-in review which was scheduled to be conducted last May, the writing is definitely on the wall.

As the Feed-in tariffs that are currently on offer are the basis of the return on investment for solar, it is important that people who are looking to go solar commit whilst the opportunity is there.

We all know that legislative reviews and changes seldom result in an increase in benefits to the end consumer, and the most recent experience in Canberra saw the feed-in tariff cut from 54¢ to 44¢ per kWh.

Solar Power and Renewable Energy Policy: What will make a REAL Difference

What Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott fail to realise in this election (and for that matter the parties as well, because it is all about policy not personalities *ahem*) is that setting the policy framework is fine, but not acting and making a REAL change on renewable energy policy will not only set Australia behind it’s international counterparts, but overall, it has a huge impact on the planet, and the future for us, and for our children.

When looking at who is the worst polluter, and asking “can we make a real difference”, the answer surely is yes.  Whilst Australia is not big in population, its 2006 emissions per capita were almost as high as the USA, and we were by far the worst performer in the Asia/Pacific region.

Check out a plot of CO2 Emissions versus total Population from 1820 through to 2006, courtesy of Gapminder.org.  www.bit.ly/bBXBlZ It really is an eye opener – we have a long way to go.

So where then to the policies that will make a real difference – take our emissions and reduce them to something realistically viable?  We are 16th worst contributing 1.28% of the World’s emissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

Current thinking on renewable energy is that we have to build vast tracts of solar farms, and move the power from regional and remote areas to where it is needed.  This requires huge infrastructure investment in the power grid as evidenced by the current government’s commitment to upgrade the energy transmission infrastructure (albeit somewhat lessened now by a late cash grab to support the car industry).  Investment in energy infrastructure is required, and should be supported, but is there a better way to do it?

How about we generate the power where it is needed, and where it is used via a useful, targeted program that has business invest in green energy and solar renewable energy at the industrial coal face – on the shopping centres, in the industrial factory zones and have them generate the power that they use renewably.

By providing a targeted business infrastructure generation plan, government could provide for a significant portion of solar energy generation WITHOUT the need for a $1.5B investment in the energy infrastructure.  So how could such a plan work in practice?

invest in installation of solar for businesses.
provide a long term GROSS metering system for business
provide incentive for big users to invest in big solar programs

Investment in this is going to only work if it is able to be significantly offset, but should not be free.  A good way to stimulate solar system developments would be to provide a 50% tax offset or rebate to businesses who invest in a solar power system of 5kW or more for their business.  Requirements would include a minimum business based use of 50kW per day, and an ABN of course.

System depreciation could also be set to a 2-4 year cycle rather than 10, allowing business to further recover the cost of the investment.

Set in place a business premium feed-in tariff which would be set at double the rate of the cost of supply.  Rather than lessening the value of the feed-in over time (as electricity prices rise), this would provide a dis-incentive for power companies to hike rates for larger users, but would encourage the business users to see future value in the investment.

If course, a gee-up in support for the current residential solar programs would not go astray either, but it would be important to allow a better structure and long term incentive for solar power via a mechanism such as a national gross feed-in tariff that is locked in legislation and tied to power prices, not simply a single figure of 60 or 80 cents per kilowatt hour.

It is reasonable to say that the proposals outlined above have not been costed, and I would definitely like to see the numbers if someone would care to run them, however I would simply argue – what cost NOT making the investment?  What cost in NOT taking a real forward looking position, what cost not taking REAL action?

If we are fair dinkum about making changes for the better, lets invest in the future where it is going to make a REAL difference, and not just dabble in the possibilities whilst we wait for the next great extinction event – ours.

A.

ALP Environment Policy released: Does it stack up?

The Environment is a key issue in the federal election, and yesterday, we saw the release of the incumbent  government’s policy.  Tin tacks time – what is really being promised and what will it mean for the average punter?

Well – the key policy announcements can be summarised thus:

• introduce a 150 person “Citizen’s Assembly” to look at climate change
• reward industry that cuts emissions early
• invest in the electricity grid
• impose new restrictions on new power stations

The speech which can be read at http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/speech–julia-gillard,–moving-forward-together-on/ has attracted more interest based on what it doesn’t say rather than what it does.

A Citizen’s Assembly is not such a bad idea, but wait – aren’t we all electing a 150 person representative assembly on August 21?  Pulling 150 people from the electoral roll and asking them their opinions on climate change is all well and good, but seriously, shouldn’t the people we elect have this say?

Other areas of major policy direction are hardly forward thinking here either – The Climate Institute’s Erwin Jackson responded by saying the government’s approach “was the kind of standard you would have introduced 15 years ago if you were trying to drive a change in technology” Good one Julia.

The investment in the Electricity Grid to help connect renewable sources in and to remote and regional areas is at least a step in the right direction.  Penny Wong released a statement yesterday (http://www.alp.org.au/blogs/alp-blog/july-2010/connecting-renewable-energy-to-the-grid/) on this, and it is definitely welcomed, as long as it is coupled with real investment in generation infrastructure, and broad based support for renewable technology.  This is as yet very unclear.

Very Large Scale solar projects such as those suggested and put together are one part of the equation, but such sources are remotely located, and hence decoupled from where the power is needed and used.

A real positive direction would be to generate renewable power where it is being used.  On factory roofs, on residential homes, and on small businesses and commercial office buildings.  Solar power systems are obviously the solution here, but you don’t need the same level of additional investment in infrastructure to get the power from where it is being generated to where it is being used.

Now it would be naive to think that we could power ALL our requirements from solar, so we must continue to invest in wind, geothermal, fuel cells and other renewable sources, and invest in the technologies to make these more efficient in the future – but we also need to have a realistic view about the quantum return on investment that this will provide, and further, the timing of this.

Climate change is happening now – we are living it on a daily basis, and the ostriches out there can no longer ignore it.  The best way to take real action is to do something substantial now, but something considered and proven.

We’ll know which direction we move in in a few weeks no doubt.

A.

Electioneering, Solar and the Environment: Who is promising what.

The Australian Federal Election action is well and truly in full swing, with Labor keen to “move forward” from the past, and Liberals wanting to Stand Up for Real Action on a variety of issues.

Over the next few weeks, I think it is worth doing some analysis of what each party will be offering in terms of value back to the Environment.  Today, I want to focus on Solar Power.

The Liberal party has put together some major information in their policy statement (available at http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy.ashx ) and key platforms are investment in renewable energy for Schools, Towns and a new One Million Roofs Solar Program, which will see the federal government provide an additional $1000 per home to Solar Power _or_ Solar Hot Water.

“To achieve the goal of one million additional solar energy roofs by 2020, the Coalition will provide an extra $1000 rebate for either solar panels or solar hot water systems. The program would be capped at 100,000 rebates per year and would therefore be capped at a total cost of $100 million per year. The rebate will be on top of existing incentives and will replace the current solar hot water incentive when it ends. It is intended that the rebate will remain in place until 2020.”

Sounds OK…

Off to the ALP website.  Type in “Environment” <search>, then stare in Awe and Wonder at the latest article posted – over 2 months ago.  OK – they have a tag word cloud, and click “Environment”.  Cool – June 7, Peter Garret marks 2010 National Whale Day.  (http://www.alp.org.au/tagresult/?tagname=Environment)

Not awe inspiring at all really – and search as I might, nothing directly on policy is readily available.  Link to http://australia.gov.au/ and see the current departments, but again, nothing up to date. I am certain (or at least I hope) that more will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead.

Off to the Greens – Climate Change and Energy Policy at http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/C1%20ClimateChange%20Nov%202009.pdf has some good reading – and shilst it is somewhat curious to note the specific absence of the word “Solar” anywhere in their policy, they do state that they are committed to measure that will “ensure that renewable electricity provides 30% of national demand by 2020 by increasing the renewable energy target (RET) and by introducing measures such as feed-in tariffs and regulations to support a range of prospective new renewable energy technologies.”

Overall a good plan…

So, so far the Coalition seems to be the only party with specific Solar Power measures which have been clearly articulated and identified that go beyond what is currently provided.  I am certain that we will hear more, and more will be posted as any major election sweeteners are announced.

I have one request though of all political parties, whether in power now or not – if you are going to make a change to the way things are done, make sure that the changes are introduced gradually, and not with a knee-jerk kick.  The industry has had enough of those to date.

A.

Free Solar Panels and free electricity – are free solar systems good for the industry?

“FREE SOLAR!” shout the advertisements, and here come the phone calls from your local (*ahem*) call center.  We’ve seen it all before.  Green Loans, Home Insulation, Commercial Hot Water – all FREE! But what price do we really pay?

Recent changes in the government’s RET scheme will give them the power to change the rates of the rebates and to change the required demand in the market for renewable energy certificates.  This will undoubtedly be exercised at some point, but the problem is that when people start hearing “Free” they are only too eager to jump on the bandwagon. When this happens, woe-betide…

Free insulation – what real cost?  The lives of installers who were incorrectly instructed, and mismanaged, hundreds of house fires, businesses ramped up then unceremoniously dumped and lumbered with hundreds of thousands of dollars of stock, ministerial scalps, and ultimately a public which is left with a very sour taste in the mouth, and a reticence to trust an industry which really, at its heart has the best chance for securing a reduction in carbon pollution into the future.

Free Green Loans – what a shambles.  Check out the report released yesterday for some interesting reading indeed.  Patricia Faulkiner has more than a few choice words to say about probity, and even the final released report has had the findings censored where “words have been removed pursuant to legal advice provided to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency”.  I wonder what the words were.  You can visit www.climatechange.gov.au and check for yourself of course.  Very interesting read…

So now we have a solar supplier who is giving away free Solar PV systems in regional NSW.  Great you cry, but we have seen that anything where it is perceived to be FREE has two huge problems.  #1 – it attracts the shonky people, the make money fasters, and get rich quick people, and #2 – it devalues the product and the public perception of the industry as a whole.  Have we learned nothing?

Whilst the eRET quietly passed through the senate with nary a whimper yesterday, the sweeping powers to regulate both the renewable energy target itself as well as the basis of the market which is supporting the change passed too.  On one hand you have an office which has set a base price for SRECs across the board of $40 in order to prop up the industry only a matter of weeks ago, on the other you have the same office now given power to change the number of the RECs which will be able to be generated by new installations.

*sigh*

I know I am getting more and more cynical with age, but really, there has to be a point at which someone does something right and puts the ENVIRONMENT first.

The challenge therefore is to
(a) set in place a system which promotes renewable energy technology
(b) support the industry to grow and develop WITHOUT attracting the “nasties”
(c) make sure that the public perception of the renewables industry is not further sullied by the bad practices and bad governance that has plagued the current administration to date.

Perhaps, just perhaps there is one thing which is FREE, and that is common sense.  The problem with that however is that it is just not all that common…

A.